Model comparison

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 39.5 to 22.6.

Side by side

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
Olmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.433.4
Released—2024-09-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—33K
Max output—29K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.66
Output $ / M tokens—$1
Results tracked1631

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding13471276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts13221251
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—119.49
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math13051251
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert13081221
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English12751205
LMArena Chinese13041222
LMArena Russian12681228
LMArena French1328—
LMArena German1282—
LMArena Korean1206—
LMArena Spanish1336—

Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following12991223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query13121251

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text13111230
LMArena Creative Writing12641174
LMArena Multi-Turn13091222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper